Conjuring a Neutron Star from a Nanowire

"Igor Pikovski, of Harvard University, and FQXi member Caslav Brukner and their colleagues recently published a paper in Nature Physics looking at how general-relativistic effects could affect quantum systems (Pikovski et al, Nature Physics (2015)). In particular, they have been investigating time dilation--the slowing of clocks near heavy objects. The team has calculated that even the weak time dilation effect on our planet due to Earth's gravity could be large enough to disrupt the quantum properties for molecules and larger objects".

1. If this is so, Igor and Caslav, should consider whether the value of light velocity (distance covered/time taken) 299,792,458m/s was measured under theinfluence of Earth's gravity or not, i.e. the distance taken for light to. If it was, whether on a different planet or neutron star with a different 'time dilation' the same value would have been obtained. On a lighter note, can an earthly currency note be used to purchase an equivalent amount of goods on a different planet? My banker tells me No, even if the earthly powers in charge of physics are giving the assurance that 'c' can be spent everywhere in the universe.

2. The International Bureau for Weights and Measures (BIPM), making full use of the property that atomic clocks are one of the most reliable time-keepers available to our civilization, defined the second as: the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Caesium 133 atom. How reliable then is this definition? Can it be of universal usage? Or is the quantum property of Caesium 133 atom immune to the time dilation effect on our planet due to Earth's gravity contrary to what is said in this article?

Akinbo

In 1985, the magician David Copperfield was filmed through lighted white screens, appearing to walk through the Great Wall of China. You can watch it on UTUBE.

Newton was wrong about abstract gravity. Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time. Real quantum particles do exist. Reality consists of nothing else but quantum particles. Reality has always consisted of quantum particles because quantum particles are eternal.

Attempting to manipulate manufactured quantum particles to behave in a manner you think they ought to behave in while seemingly trapped in an abstract black hole or while sputtering on an abstract Neutron star is silly. Every real star is unique as to its composition and its distance apart from all other stars. Every real thing has a real surface, whether the real surface it has is solid, liquid, or gaseous. All surfaces must travel at the same constant speed. Light does not have a surface; therefore, light is the only stationary substance in the Universe. You cannot accelerate nor decelerate the constant speed of surface.

Joe Fisher

Stylishly depicting computer generated graphics of astral phenomena is very pretty, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed fidelity of scientific inquiry. The picture of the supposed neutron star that accompanies this article only serves to emphasize the grotesque inaccuracy of the article's unrealistic implication.

Joe Fisher

Dear all,

Because simple rotation creating g forces and time dilatation is there any result of study for example of interaction fast rotating core of atom, vs slow rotating core of atom, or molecule etc

Is it some kind of study technically possible ?

/Centrifuga for atoms/

It is interesting to me that you keep bringing up the definition of the speed of light and the Cs-133 atomic clock frequency. Since these are definitions, that is simply how they are used in science. In fact, there are about four more decimal places for the Cs-133 frequency right now beyond just the integer value that you show.

There are differences between space and earth, vacuum and air, moving or at rest, but that does not change the fixed definitions of time and space as c. There must be something fixed in order to anchor reality and so the questions that you ask should not be about the fixed definitions of time and c, your questions should be about the consequences for other measurements like mass, not of the definitions of time and space.

Fixing time to the frequency of Cs-133 and space to c should result in a constant mass over time. However, the IPK mass standard in Paris varies at 0.28 ppb/yr and there is no more precise measurement of mass yet. Without a correspondingly precise measurement of mass to anchor time and space, our definitions of time and space are simply that...definitions.

Hello Steve,

If you check the definition of a second by the BIPM here you will see provisos attached to the definition such as the Cs-133 being in an environment at 0K temperature, etc. In other words the environment in which Cs-133 is can affect its frequency. Is this not so? Why then can't a similar proviso be included for the "the weak time dilation effect on our planet due to Earth's gravity (which) could be large enough to disrupt the quantum properties for molecules and larger objects (mentioned here by Igor and Caslav)" so that the definition can be used on other planets?

This is even more necessary since man has now become a space-faring animal.

But the motivation for not including this proviso can be found when you look at the BIPM definition of the metre as 'the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second'.

So if the scientific world follows your advice and your claim that "...there are about four more decimal places for the Cs-133 frequency right now beyond just the integer value that you show", then the 'length of the path travelled by light during a time interval of a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second (which will now be 9 192 631 770 Hz + your 4 decimal places) will no longer be EXACTLY, which word EXACTLY is needed for the fait accompli statement that follows:

It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is EXACTLY 299 792 458 metres per second.

So if definition of a second varies, definition of the speed of light will vary being dependent on the constancy of what constitutes a second.

This fanatical attachment to using EXACTLY by Einstein's followers, when even Einstein himself has jettisoned this attachment to a constant light speed in GR has a motivation other than the pursuit of truth (no need repeating the quote again unless you don't know it).

On your subject of interest, which is mass and its possible decay, you must knowisoned as well that its value depends on the velocity of the measurer (observer) based on the Lorentz transformation:

m' = m/в€љ(1-v2/c2)

where m is the mass of the object when stationary to the observer and m', the mass when moving at a velocity, v. There is no room for decay in this situation when v = 0. And the BIPM does not agree with the claim that it varies by 0.28 ppb/yr (see here).

Akinbo

All I am saying is that a definition is a definition. Where the chickens come home to roost is not with a variation of time or space by the atomic clock and c, it is with a variation of mass or some other property and that would reveal the true nature of reality. It does not appear that this nanowire experiment will have the precision to measure the decay of matter over several years.

Science fixes time and space by definition, but cannot yet measure mass variation with anyway near the precision of time as atomic frequency. Fixing time and space end up shifting all of the variability left to mass, but that variation in mass would still only be equivalent to 1 second in 64 years of equivalent time.

Precision measurements of mass over long periods of time either validate or falsify the notion of matter decay. Science is in a state of denial and dismisses its own measurements of matter decay as being due to systematic errors. Look, there are many sources for variability in measurements of time and mass. Science's current paradigm fixes time and space by definition of clock frequency and c, but science cannot fix mass with any greater precision than the equivalent of 1 second in 64 years.

The new watt balance weighs the energy of a superconducting current loop and may show decay of matter given 5-10 years of measurement. The LISA interferometer may also show this once launched into Lagrange 1 orbit this year. The very slow decay is a second dimension of time and that decay is not consistent with the current paradigm of mainstream science.

However, matter decay seems to show up in the IPK decay and the spin decay decay of the earth and the average decays of millisecond pulsars and just about everywhere I look. When I first got this notion of universal decay, I thought for sure there would be any number of measurements that would prove that matter does not decay. Alas, I have been unable to find any, but maybe I am wrong.

A universal decay is a fun concept, though, since it permits a moving frame to know how fast it is moving relative to the CMB. In a moving frame, although time and c do not appear to change, the measurement of matter decay does appear to slow down. Knowing the universal matter decay then tells the moving frame its absolute velocity.

This does not mean that relativity is wrong, just that the notions of GR are limited by our notions of continuous space, motion, and time. Matter decay is a notion that seems to augment the limitations of continuous space, motion, and time.

Dear Anonymous who I believe is Steve,

I appreciate your point of view even if we are directly opposite. On your notion of universal mass decay, my own hypothesis is that:

The Universe has been increasing in mass and radius from an initial zero value to its currently still increasing size at a rate 6.75 X 1026kg per metre change in radius, which also amounts to about 2.25 X 1018kg per second.

In other words after the Big Bang the mass of the universe was about 10-8kg which gives a model temperature 1032K.

If you believe at least superficially in the Big Bang, this hypothesis resolves the flatness, singularity and temperature problems in the standard model.

But as I said this is my own finding and I can only wish that experimental confirmation of your view proves me wrong.

All the best,

Akinbo

We are not so far apart it would seem.

A shrinking universe is much more consistent with attractive force of gravity and charge, but the fact of mass decay is one of dephasing while mass gain would be rephasing.

My universe is closed and bounded and so the limits of what we see are the limits of the universe. Since certain constants like c define the universe collapse, this changes the nature of the light cones that limit events in GR.

Actually, all that remains to validate a shrinking universe is more sensitive measurements to further validate the decay that has already been observed but dismissed as an artifact or an effect of tidal forces or gravity radiation.

...and to prove your universe, you do not have to disprove the current paradigm. All you need do is note that the current paradigm is necessarily limited by the notions of continuous space, motion, and time. Your expanding universe is presumably where force comes from and to get attractive forces from expansion, you need a phase factor, especially when you scale gravity and charge from the same expansion.

You seem to be especially focused on the nature of light as a transverse mode in space. But light does not exist without both a source and an absorber just as charge and gravity do not exist without at least two objects. We imagine force fields in an otherwise empty space as a convenient representation of object interactions, but it is the exchange of matter that determines action.

Light is likewise simply a representation of the bonding action between two objects that we conveniently represent as isolated photons. Although imagining light as an isolated photon or as an isolated wave is a very useful simplification of reality, that simplification does not apply at either very large or very small scale.

I like to explain the way the universe really is...

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 18, 2015 @ 15:15 GMT as "Can you please explain me your universe, I d like to know more, it seems relevant."

I have both technical and less technical descriptions. I presume you are less technical and so try these links:

Aether Time

What Is Time

What Is Matter

What Is Action

It turns out that as I discuss the universe, my notions evolve and I rewrite these blogs to reflect any updated notions.

Hello Steve A.,

Thanks , it is interesting, I am wishing you all the best in your works.

I like personnally the generality of our Universe,they turn so they are these spheres inside a bautiful universal sphere.It exists a central sphere inside this universal sphere.The quantum world is in the same logic.

Best Regards.

It is a quite beautiful association of the spin pair that we call charge force with the ultimate spin pair of universe that we call gravity force. Earth's spin and Sol and our galaxy and galaxy cluster and a large scale structure are all spinning bound to a complementary large scale structure and galaxy cluster and galaxy and star and planet with complementary spin.

The microscopic spin pairs of quantum charge and the cosmic spin pairs both began in the the fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background and both reflect the beauty of a universal aethertime force.

Thanks Mr Agnew,interesting point of vue.

Dear Carinne Piekema,

Thanks for presenting the work of Keith Schwab. Making good experiments is hard work.

It keeps the rest of us honest.

Here are some ideas for Keith:

1. It is possible that your vibrating wire is producing EM radiation (aka light) at a wavelength of about 0.3 meters. Get a ham radio receiver set it to detect 0.3 meters and take a look. I am very suspicious that gravity waves due to accelerations may actually be light.

2. I also suspect that general relativity is correct and at the same time incomplete. I have reason to believe that the standard model of the graviton will complete gravity theory. Check out this link: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/17_Making_a_Case_for_the_Graviton.html

4. I believe some of the best work on gravity is being done via the current work on neutrino detectors check out: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/38_Neutrinos_and_Gravity.html

3. If the links interests you can get a better overview of my work via the index: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/Index.html

Thanks for doing the hard work.

Don Limuti

Hi Don and Ms Piekema,

I agree totally with you Don, I don't think that we can analyse the gravity in the logic of our standard model and heat and thermo and electromagnetism.The gravitons are not really relevant and foundamental because they are bosons.The gravitation is the weakest force considering the encoding of informations.If the spherical volumes are an universal key linking the quantum scale and the cosmological scale, so it becomes relevant.Theproblem is how to see them,I named them the spherons.How to check them,to analyse them ....They are so small and speed these partiles encoded in our nucleis.The QFT and the QED must be renormalised in inserting the gravitation but with a different logic that said.If the quantum of gravitational energy is different than a quantum of actualthermodynamical energy, so it becomes relevant.The mathematical methods can be applied but with the biggest relativity about enetropy.The gravitons are not rational in fact simply.The BH and dark matter are correlated.The spherical quantum and cosmological volumes can answer in fact.It is the same with c, a boson cannot ,but a spheron, particle of gravitation, in logic if my équations are correct, can.Neutrinos are bosons, gravitons also, gravitation is not a boson.They aree encoded in our nucleis in a kind of dark quantum matter where there the volumes increase towards the singularity.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your comments. I would rephrase your last sentence to read neutrinos are bosons when they act as gravitons. I have followed deBroglie off the deep end, and also believe that neutrinos are fundamental to light where they move in such a way that they are not bosons.

There is geometry in the humming of the strings, there is music in the spacing of the spheres, and there's life in math! Pythagoras

Don Limuti

Hi Don,

You are welcome.The neutrinos are bosons and are probably correct ,that said , the graviton in my line of reasoning, no.Gravitation is different it seems to me humbly.We live indeed Inside a beautiful universal music of improvement.....They turn, they dance, they polarise, they evolve, they sing these rotating sphères.The partitioning is relevant....

Best Regards

EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity -- https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific discovery

of quantum gravity and quantum antigravity.

Present day quantum gravity theories suffer from

too many mathematical space dimensions, and from

too few conclusive experimental results.

My hypothesis is simple, clear,

and subject to easy empirical verification :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

Should you have any questions or need clarification,

I am more than happy to answer.